Hi Marko, Marko Rodriguez schrieb am 30.03.2010 um 16:01:42 (-0600): > Ha. There is a Gremlin mailing list if you are **super** interested > :). http://groups.google.com/group/gremlin-users ... However, don't > even try and join unless you are !!!!SUPER!!!! interested. :P
Thanks - too late, I already joined :-) Will be lurking, for the moment. I hope not to annoy people too much by continuing what has started here. > Exactly. People tend to forget this point---thats why I stress it. > Vertices are adjacent to edges and edges are adjacent to vertices. > HyperGraphDB [ http://www.kobrix.com/hgdb.jsp ] throws that > distinction out of the water and says all there is are 'atoms' and > 'atoms' can be adjacent to each other. By making a distinction between > edges and vertices, you are saying that an edge is a binary > relationship between two vertices---this makes it a regular graph as > opposed to a hypergraph. Neo4j/Gremlin/RDF/and_lots_others are regular > graphs. Thanks for explaining. I wasn't aware of hypergraphs. Sounds pretty experimental. > > I understand outE, inE and bothE. Edges may have a direction (or > > two, or none - depending on the point of view), so in/out/both looks > > like the logical thing to do. > > > > But what about outV and inV? Vertices aren't directional, are they? > > Yea---outV means "the outgoing vertex from the edge" (the tail of the > edge). inV means "the incoming vertex of the edge" (the head of the > edge). In Neo4j speak, its startNode and endNode, respectively. Excuse my insolence, but couldn't you simplify by letting the user say: outE/V # bound to be an inV inE/V # bound to be an outV outE/outV # confusing way of saying (in XPath) "self::node()" inE/inV # ditto Best, -- Michael Ludwig _______________________________________________ Neo mailing list [email protected] https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
